Explain a Soroban contract

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'Read.' It adds useful context that it only shows the published interface, not source code, and that it includes documentation published by the contract author. This goes beyond the basic read-only hint to clarify scope.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is composed of two efficient sentences. The first states what it does; the second gives usage context. No redundant text or filler; every clause adds value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned (functions, params, types, docs) and when to use it. Annotations cover safety, leaving no significant gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema covers the single parameter (contractId) with a description confirming it's a Soroban contract address. The tool description does not add extra parameter details beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline for 100% coverage without enhancing semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool reads a deployed Soroban contract's published interface and lists its functions, parameters, return types, and documentation. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (explain_account, diagnose_transaction) by focusing specifically on contract interface discovery.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly advises using this tool before interacting with an unfamiliar contract or to answer specific questions about contract capabilities and function arguments. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough given the sibling tools' different purposes.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.